In 1985, President Ronald Reagan (R) gave a speech where he was appalled that millionaires were legally allowed to pay fewer taxes than the average citizen by abusing loopholes and usurping the spirit of tax laws. In 2012, President Barack Obama (D) agreed with the former president's insight. It is being presented to Americans as the "Buffett Rule" after a speech given by one of the wealthiest men on the planet, Warren Buffett, stated that sound economics demanded the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. However, this rule should rightfully be called the "Reagan Rule" and properly credit the insight seen by the former leader of the United States of America.
The extreme partisanship found in America's government system creates such a profound toxin that it spreads like terminal cancer leading the country to ruin. What is most disappointing is that neither wants the cancer spread to stop, taking Americans down with their extremist views. If republicans are actually in favor of a smaller government, then why do they support loopholes that require bigger government? If democrats want more equality throughout classes, why are they supporting mogul industries like oil and mining by giving them a tax obligation not exceeding three percent and outsourcing job opportunities? Both parties should understand that the economy needs a balance of spending and revenue, not the traditional party hard-line approaches. In the end, both tactics only further destroy the country.
Republicans seem to be clinging to ghost of a president who left the country in financial ruin by supporting Bush's elitist comment. He told a New York City audience, "If you raise taxes, you're taking money out of the pockets of consumers." Bush gives America the impression that the only consumers in the country are the wealthy. Odd, as people with money are generally the ones who are given or "comped" items in this country.
The Republican Party wants America to face more of the same Bush debacle by backing Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate. He believes that repealing tax cuts would slow economic growth, the creation of jobs, and constitute a tax increase. He seems to be overlooking that lower and middle-class incomes are already carrying a bulk of the tax burden while trying to figure out how to survive in an "advanced" society experiencing the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. This gives the impression that those with money are disinclined to create positive long-term job solutions. Rather, it appears that they are contented to continue to over inflate market prices to extract every nickel from those taxpayers carrying their burden.
This philosophy is more inline with a caste system than a class system. Now, if the actual goal is to turn America into a third-world country, then caste away. However, if the goal is to stabilize a stagnant economy and enjoy economic growth, then the "Bush Tax Cuts" line of thinking needs to be abandoned. It is counter to sound capitalism to depend on one percent of the population to bring a balanced consumer economy. The numbers don't add up.
Democrats should get comfortable with the idea that a federal program for everything is not the solution for long-term recovery. This is a matter of the basic economic principle that a budget that spends more than it takes in is not sustainable. It is illogical for a country to spend its way out of debt.
Although Obama overall has been lackluster as a president in his first term, the "Reagan Rule" brings with it a balanced economic approach. However, to make the American economy vibrant, the administration needs to stop looking for more ways to gouge taxpayers and demand taxes from mogul industries. The mining and oil industries are costing Americans billions each year, destroying the environment, and pillaging family purses. These industries continue to do so without paying penalties for devastation and contributing next to nothing into the nation's coffers.
The American people do not vote either party into office so they can form an extremist regime. It is expected that both parties bring points of view and reach a reasonable compromise that benefits the entire constituency—not their party and most certainly not political gain and profit. It's time to put the clubs down and get to work.
by
Deb Duxbury
Member since:
February 24, 2012 Reagan Rule is Sound Economics
April 14, 2012 08:45 PM UTC
7 people recommend this
|
comments: 56
Find more about:
politics,
reagan rule,
buffett rule,
partisan extremism,
usa economy,
tax issues,
election,
republicans,
democrats,
stabilizing america,
tax code
Find Gather groups:
Gather Politics News Channel
7 people recommend this post
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
||||||||||
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Books | Business | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Giveaways | Health | Money | Moms | News | Politics | Sports | Style | Technology | Travel | Writing
Version 18247, "Zach"; Copyright © 2013 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 56
Not saying Clinton was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he did have us on track for a zero national debt by uh...2010. After that the Bush signed every single spending bill that the Republican Congress sent to him for nearly six years straight. So much for a zero national debt. Instead we ended up borrowing money from China and other entities so we could "give" money to the wealthiest Americans while millions of other Americans fell below the poverty line.
The top 5% make 21.7% of the income. What share of the income tax is fair?
And, the IRS Thugocracy should be abolished.
You're just hitting 'em out of the park,Deb.
On the Bush Tax Cuts - We might bear in mind that those were originally sold to the public as money being given back to the people from the budget surplus. By the time those were signed into law we were already in DEFICIT. To this day, not one single Bush economic expert has been able to say that the tax cuts have even paid for themselves, let alone stimulate the economy beyond that.
And they're both tools of the money interests of Pharma, Agri, Financial and Military Industrial.
That belief has been castigated by a number of pundits, in recent years, to be a hackneyed ideology--that has never worked and will never work.
Why isn't the jury still out on certain government programs that can reduce the debt with target stimulation, by increasing employment and therefore revenue?
Isn't it possible to suggest that some of the uptick, in still a sluggish economy, may be the result, partially, of a diluted stimulus package(s)--which, with greater bipartisanship, said programs might have been much more potent, thereby improving the economy that much more?
There is an outside chance for a grand compromise following an Obama re-election. But if Romney were to be elected, I'm concerned that he would have to sign whatever crazy tax cuts the Republican Congress would send him because he would be under the burden of proving how conservative he is. I don't think he would be able to move them around to his way of thinking.
Republicans offered $300 billion (6 times larger than the Buffet rule Obama is pushing) in revenue increases in November, but the Dems said no.
What we're trying to move against is institutionalized unfairness. We want to see that everyone pays their fair share, and no one gets a free ride. Our reasons? It's good for society when we all know that no one is manipulating the system to their advantage because they're rich and powerful. But it's also good for society when everyone pays something, that everyone makes a contribution.
[Note: Today it is estimated 46 percent don't pay any income taxes]
But the heartening thing is that no one in Washington is standing up and saying, ``Leave the tax system as it is, it's wonderful, we love it.'' Just about everyone admits it has to be changed. The only disagreements now are over the specifics. And no one, or just about no one, is saying we ought to raise taxes and take more of the people's money. Actually, I think it would be fun if some politician would say that. I haven't seen anyone run out of town on a rail in years. [Laughter]
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/60685a.htm
Reagan closed down the IRS's Office of International Operations which limited the government's ability to get tax revenues from tax free accounts sheltered overseas. This treason started the massive increase in the corporate welfare state.
I find your statement interesting. According to the class envy statements Obama has been making the last few weeks it appears he believes that is the case now.
Just so you know I am on the bottom end of the "middle class" so I have no incentive to promote making my self poorer.
Removing taxes from businesses frees them up to expand and offer more jobs. It would eliminate all loop holes. It would also eliminate the controversy regarding tax-exempt non-profit and religious organizations.
One of two things could be done for tax revenue. Have one Flat tax for all personal income and benefits or go to a national sales tax system where all but a few items would be taxed for both companies and individuals. I am not sure what system would be the best. But I do know the current system is so complicated the IRS and tax attorneys can't figure it out any more.
Removing business taxes does NOT remove personal income taxes, so how would that shift the burden entirely on the middle class?
Without tax money from businesses, the entire tax bill will be paid by working, middle class people.
I would opt for the national sales tax (via Fair Tax).
1) A tax discourages activity. I would rather discourage consumption than discourage production.
2) We are a net importer. Taxing on the consumption side would tax imports making domestic products more competitive here.
3) Eliminated imbedded taxes on production will lower the cost of American goods for export making them more competitive on the global market.
4) The tax code was flattened to a large degree in 1986, but has been modified thousands of times since. I think it would be harder to hide special interest cronyism in a sales tax based system.
I don't see your logic. The vast majority of rich people pay personal taxes now. How would eliminating the corporate tax change that?
I would also keep the death (estate) tax.
Wonderful ~ that means they get police & protection, utilities services, road & traffic access - all for free. Great deal, ain't it?
Reagan further increased the deficit. But as Dick Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".
Unless Norquist goes away, this anti-tax idea is not going away.